The Regulators
The issues raised on this site have far reaching importance for those affected by the appalling and licensed abuse perpetrated by CAPSTONE MORTGAGE SERVICES, and implications for those who never even dreamt that this could touch their lives.
The continued licence of this abuse by the FAILED REGULATORS has implications for the wider economy also. More money is being sucked OUT of the real economy into the dead American vultures, via PwC, the courts and the total inaction of the FSA.
That does no-one any good.
It really is within the FSA’s powers to take action. Can the short term grubby financial gain of a few criminals really be put before the wider interests of the economy, the rule of law and consumer protections?
At the moment it very much seems that way.
The propaganda tells you that the loans and mortgages were “sub-prime”. But in reality that is far from the truth. Jackal rate interest rates, outrageous charges, maladministration galore and psychological abuse would take their toll on anyone. The truth is that it is the originators, the spvs and the appalling administrators who are sub-prime, toxic and delinquent. And the FSA allows their toxic effects to spread everywhere, distorting the economy and screwing the tax payer in the process. Hundreds of thousands will be forcibly repossessed and dispossessed but millions will pick up the bill.
So who was supposed to protect us from this and still is entrusted with this pivotal role? In the main it’s the FSA. Here’s a quick reminder of the wonderful protections from all this abuse we are provided with:
Source: TSC REPORT AUGUST 2009
The FSA took on responsibility for mortgage regulation in 2004. FSA Statutory objectives include securing the appropriate degree of protection for consumers (The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Part 1, Section 3)
The FSA also regulates by reference to its own principles of good regulation amongst which are that a firm must conduct its business with due skill, care and integrity; observe proper standards of market conduct and pay due regard to the interests of its consumers and treat them fairly. Finally a firm must take reasonable care to ensure the suitability of its advice and discretionary decisions for any customer who is entitled to rely upon its judgment.
The FSA’s own performance report has nine high level indicators by which to assess performance in achieving its strategic aims. Indicator four is particularly instructive:
(4)Firms are financially sound, well managed and compliant with their regulatory obligations;
Furthermore in reference to the FSA Treating Customers Fairly—outcomes for consumers, July 2006.
“Consumers can be confident that they are dealing with firms where the fair treatment of customers is central to the corporate culture. Consumers are provided with clear information and are kept appropriately informed before, during and after the point of sale”
Further:
Consumers do not face unreasonable post-sale barriers imposed by firms to change product, switch provider, submit a claim or make a complaint.”
If a firm breaches FSA’s rules, enforcement action may follow. If enforcement action is taken the FSA has a range of disciplinary, civil and criminal powers which it can use against regulated and non-regulated firms. The sanctions include financial penalties, removal of authorisation or even criminal prosecution in cases of misconduct.
Additionally, The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD 2008) seeks to protect consumer interests from unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices. In particular, commercial practices will be unfair if they are misleading (this includes both acts and omissions) or aggressive.
Further the UTCCRs (1999) provide that: (a) a consumer may challenge a standard term in an agreement on the basis that it is “unfair” within the Regulations and therefore not binding on the consumer.
The scale of consumer detriment by consequence of the practices identified in paragraph 10are part of the corporate culture of the so called “sub-prime” market. Such practices represent clear contempt for the rules and regulations the FSA in conjunction with the OFT and the FOS have laid down. Regulation is clearly insufficient. Only the FSA, together with the FOS and the OFT can give consumer protections real effect. Qui custodientipsoscustodes?
There has been much recent discussion elsewhere that the regulatory systems and authorities have failed in their primary duties of oversight and compliance and that better governance is needed. It is submitted before this committee that where the law is clear then observation of the various laws and regulations must be enforced. In absentia the rule of law and the sovereignty of parliament are subjugated to the will of the finance industry, a clear case of the tail wagging the dog.
The regulatory instruments are clear but seem unable to prevent breaches so as to lack effect. The FSA seems unable to sanction firms breaching its own regulations, often arising from EU directives, which if inadequately applied lay the state itself (or various emanations thereof) potentially open to damages claims, chiefly under the Francovich principle.
Then of course there is the FSMA 2000
FINANCIAL SERVICES AND MARKETS ACT 2000
This is massive dense, and complex.
It will be noted that section 150 holds out some hope for the poor bloody battered consumer of this ‘mortgage’ fraud and thievery. But I think that sections 397 and 404 hold out a bit of hope also. Again though, it will rely on pressure being applied to the USELESS AUTHORITIES TO WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE.
LET’S JUST TAKE A LITTLE LOOK AT THOSE SECTIONS AND WHAT THE FSA COULD BE DOING. NO REFORMS ARE NECESSARY AND THEY COULD ACT TODAY.
150.
(1) A contravention by an authorised person of a rule is actionable at the suit of a private person who suffers loss as a result of the contravention, subject to the defences and other incidents applying to actions for breach of statutory duty.
(2) If rules so provide, subsection (1) does not apply to contravention of a specified provision of those rules.
(3) In prescribed cases, a contravention of a rule which would be actionable at the suit of a private person is actionable at the suit of a person who is not a private person, subject to the defences and other incidents applying to actions for breach of statutory duty.
(4) In subsections (1) and (3) “rule” does not include—
(a) listing rules; or
(b) a rule requiring an authorised person to have or maintain financial resources.
(5) “Private person” has such meaning as may be prescribed.
Part XXVII Offences Miscellaneous offences
397.—(1) This subsection applies to a person who—
(a) makes a statement, promise or forecast which he knows to be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular;
(b) dishonestly conceals any material facts whether in connection with a statement, promise or forecast made by him or otherwise; or
(c) recklessly makes(dishonestly or otherwise) a statement, promise or forecast which is misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular.
(2) A person to whom subsection (1) applies is guilty of an offence if he makes the statement, promise or forecast or conceals the facts for the purpose of inducing, or is reckless as to whether it may induce, another person (whether or not the person to whom the statement, promise or forecast is made)—
(a) to enter or offer to enter into, or to refrain from entering or offering to enter into, a relevant agreement; or
(b) to exercise, or refrain from exercising, any rights conferred by a relevant investment.
(3) Any person who does any act or engages in any course of conduct which creates a false or misleading impression as to the market in or the price or value of any relevant investments is guilty of an offence if he does so for the purpose of creating that impression and of thereby inducing another person to acquire, dispose of, subscribe for or underwrite those investments or to refrain from doing so or to exercise, or refrain from exercising, any rights conferred by those investments.
Would not the investors rely on this. I should think they damn well would.
(8) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years or a fine, or both.
(9) “Relevant agreement” means an agreement—
(a) the entering into or performance of which by either party constitutes an activity of a specified kind or one which falls within a specified class of activity; and
(b) which relates to a relevant investment.
Part XXVIII Miscellaneous Schemes for reviewing past business
404.—(1) Subsection (2) applies if the Treasury are satisfied that there is evidence suggesting—
(a) that there has been a widespread or regular failure on the part of authorised persons to comply with rules relating to a particular kind of activity; and
(b) that, as a result, private persons have suffered (or will suffer) loss in respect of which authorised persons are (or will be) liable to make payments (“compensation payments”)
OK. So even if it were the case that WE can’t make it stick, because we are here to be abused, ripped off, dispossessed and generally ignored, it would most certainly seem to be the case that the investors almost certainly COULD make it stick. All it needs is for one-group of investors to come forward and say, much like we have, “…this isn’t what we signed up to…”
17 Comments for “The Regulators”
Leave a Comment
As IMO isn’t here at present in her absence I will post what she wrote on CAG.
Ref. the thread securitization is designed to fail started by JonCris.
(WITH A FEW ADDITIONS)
These arguments which relate to the American market can quite easily be applied here.The group that many are concerned with here are the Lehmans subprime entities.The various prospectuses have been written for the English market and show far less caution to potential investors.
It is in fact significant that this group only having started some 5 years ago have caused so much distress to so many people.
The prospectuses give great weight to lending criteria,such criteria was never adhered to,it is apparent from evidence from people on this site that such criteria was relaxed to the extent that people on benefits were being offered substantial loans,affordability criteria was ignored in fact it would appear that nearly all could obtain a loan, a fact unknown and kept well away from the investor who lived in the fools paradise of believing that if such a loan had been missold contracturally the originator would be compelled to buy it back,which is exactly what happened in the early days when I believe a broker fraud was exposed(other such frauds carried on unabated, no doubt the loans were simply repackaged and sold on in the next securitization it was gravy boat time for all ).
This group are still trading as shells and have pursued vigorous repossession strategies, many through manufactured arrears and have escaped consequence from both their regulators and investors.The parent has gone ,there is no one left to pick up the bills or take responsibility.The consumer and the investor were both missold the product.The applicable FSA guidelines to which these lenders subscribe in relation to lending criteria was never properly or fully implemented.
We now have the spectacle of the investor turning on the spv because of failing returns,the spv turning on the administrator who in turn is turning on the borrower with rapacious and increasingly desperate unwarranted repossessions because of the ongoing and increasing failure of the mortgage pools, whilst the real profiteers are in the wind.
The great CON on the British public both investor and consumer worked and was allowed to work and is still working due to the complete ineptitude of the Regulating Authorities despite warnings,what bigger warning could you have that something was seriously wrong than the biggest bankruptcy in history.But this was in America the tentacles that spread their way into Britain were forgot.
Still to this day 18 months on despite this national scandal,brushed under the carpet,ignored by the press,thousands made illegally homeless ,what do we hear?
The Sound of Silence.
Lets get a simple petition up together and send it to the new pm and minister in charge who all hate the fsa and the fsa itself and ask them what the hell theyre doing.
THE LINES BEING: THAT DESPITE THE CENSURE AND FINES IMPOSED ON GMAC AND KENSINGTON,SPML/PML/LMC/SPPL ACTING THROUGH THEIR ADMINISTRATOR CAPSTONE ARE CONTINUING TO PERPETRATE THE SAME OFFENCES AS THE 2 ALREADY FINED WITH IMPUNITY HAVING TAKEN NO NOTICE WHATSOEVER OF THE WARNINGS GIVEN BY THE PUNISHMENT AND FINDINGS ALEADY INSTIGATED.THE OMBUDSMAN HAS BEEN FLOODED WITH COMPLAINTS,HOMEOWNERS ARE BEING TERRORISED AND SUBJECTED ON A DAILY BASIS TO FALSELY PREMISED CLAIMS IN COUNTY COURTS THROUGHTOUT THE COUNTRY BASED HIGHLY DISTORTED AND FALSE ARREARS FIGURES BECAUSE DESPITE RULINGS TO THE CONTRARY EXCESSIVE ARREARS FEES THE HIGHEST IN THE INDUSTRY HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE MORTGAGE ACCOUNT.HUNDREDS OF HOMEOWNERS HAVE ALREADY LOST THEIR HOMES BECAUSE OF WRONGLY BOUGHT LITIGATION BY THIS GROUP OF LENDERS ALL PART OF THE FAILED INVESTMENT BANK LEHMAN BROTHERS,THERE IS NO ADEQUATE COMPENSATION FOR THESE UNFORTUNATES.
Hi Ryde, Petitions are OK but never seem to do much apart from bringing issues to peoples attention, which is ok if you’re out petitioning on the street. The online petition on CAG proves the fact as there are only 22 signatures the last I looked. What I believe we need is an online template, some sort of standard letter (with a counter, so we knew how many times the template had been downloaded) stating all what you have said and maybe a little more, that peeps can alter slightly to make things a little more personal. I’m pretty sure IMO can come up with something, if not a group effort. Individual complaints are what is needed, carbon copies of each personal letter sent to all eg David Cameron, Nick Clegg, Vince Cable, George Osborne etc and anybody else that might listen and able to do something ‘promptly’. Done like this we should get personal replies back.
Any comments, ideas, etc?
Have you checked out the Coalition governments programme ? Provide protection against aggressive bailiffs etc insist repossession is always last resort. Stronger consumer protection.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_187876.pdf
Am I able to post links here ?
Fleegle
I am in total agreement with what you say and will try and work on something, a petition is useless as you say and is clutching at straws.
What we need is a “bad guy” type motivator like they used to have on CAG until he was banned for getting too close to the truth to give peeps a feckin great boot up the ass and get them moving on this.Cos that man certainly had a way with words.8
Could not agree more, trouble is there are far too many standing on the sidelines for some reason or another. I have tried to PM some people on CAG who had trouble with Capstone, no replies back, they obviously believe that their homes are now safe under the suspended repo as they have an arrangement & FOS complaint.
The hits on this site are high so people are reading, if only everybody would complain.
What we need is a Michael Moore over here,I saw his expose on capitalism last night,the corruption in America is even worse than here. Half of the treasury officials including the 74th United States Treasury Secretary Henry Merritt “Hank” Paulson, Jr. were ex employees of Goldman Sachs.!!!! He previously served as the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Goldman Sachs!!! and who best survived the banking crisis!!they didn’t survive ,they actually THRIVED.
There is a storm brewing over there,people are starting to take action,we always seem to follow some years down the line,usually too late.
How can people just stand by and watch their home being stolen away!!??HOW.
Like America we have a new administration.
NOW IS AN IDEAL TIME TO ACT.
BREAKING NEWS: ARTICLE IN TODAY’S PRESS; CAPSTONE MORTGAGE SERVICES TO REBRAND AS ACENDEN.
With new ownership, Capstone Mortgage Services, a third party specialist mortgage servicer is to rebrand as Acenden, probably in the fourth quarter of 2010.
As it is no longer ‘captive’ to Lehman Brothers, it is launching the next phase of growth with the Acenden name. The company says it will complete its emergence as a standalone, financially strong company with the highest S&P special servicer ranking of any mortgage servicing company in the UK.
Amany Attia, CEO, said ‘Acenden will be the most experienced new entrant the market will ever see. We have taken the best of Capstone’s demonstrated capability in residential mortgage servicing and brought it to a new level.
We have been very busy in the last year focusing resources and energy to offer a market leading proposition and we have a new and strengthened management team.
Clients and customers will benefit from our significant investment in the company – we have a completely new servicing system, have upgraded our data management and reporting capability and improved our analytic tools. Furthermore, we have rebuilt and strengthened our balance sheet and improved our liquidity to ensure the strength of the company.
As the markets deteriorated and arrears and repossessions increased, we have added resources, teams and solutions to help our customers and clients deal with these problems, including creating what we believe to be the first loss mitigation team in the UK. We have also made a significant financial investment in uppgrading our servicing system and telephone infrastructure.’
Martin Frazer, Commercial Director said ‘This is a new and exciting period for us and we are looking forward to a real growth period. We opened an office in Dublin in March 2010, are already servicing clients there and are, for the first time, open for business for new clients in the UK.
We have a lot to offer as a full service, integrated provide of primary, special servicing and related administrative services for all residential mortgages, but for specialist and higher risk mortgage loans in particular.We look forward to making an impact in the market’.
SO NOW WE KNOW!!!
Thanks for that Dingle
As you can see I’ve already taken a couple of steps to raise the profile of this. The brassed neck nerve of Attia holding herself up as some champion of consumer’s rights takes the breath away. Feckin’ unbelievable.
Hi
we’re tied with a mortgage from Acenden and for the past few years they have been making us take their home insurance even though we have our own. We keep writing to them but all they say is that we must have them named on the policy?? Can anyone help ?? Me and DH are at our wits end with this crowd of robbers!
Hi all,
Had put on 2 e-petitions on the gov.uk website regarding sub prime lenders and they have both been REFUSED
‘Your e-petition “Sub Prime Lending” hasn’t been accepted.
E-petitions cannot be used to request action on issues that are outside the responsibility of the government. This includes:
party political material
commercial endorsements including the promotion of any product, service or publication
issues that are dealt with by devolved bodies, eg The Scottish Parliament
correspondence on personal issues
E-petitions cannot be used for freedom of information requests.’
These are their so called lists, but none of them seem appropriate in these circumstances.
this is nuts as all the issues that we might raise are the responsibility of government.
How about doing the petitions through the all-about-debt website?
Thanks Sappho
I have just emailed them our story.
Petitions have been tried before 22 signatures on the last one due to fear and general apathy.(the “its a waste of time can’t be bothered attitude”)
The only way is media exposure,the Mail articles helped them to dress up/clean up their act and the most damaging thing is considering their publicity and high S and P ratings they have attracted no major new clients and their existing mortgage books ie US is running down.
This has been entirely caused in my view by bad publicity generated primarily by this site and others and the Mail articles.
Who wants to engage a servicer with such a hostile and dissatisfied clientelle?
As proved over time.
NO ONE.
I have to endorse this comment. It is a sad fact that the very people we hope to protect and unfortunately those in a more privileged position who support the general thrust of this site do not participate in enough numbers either with media enquiries or with petitions. The reasons are perfectly understandable but it is believed that they are firmly misplaced. We have gone to a lot of work here to support the abused. But in the end the abused can only help themselves. If you are one of the repossessed you have least to lose by coming forward.
I was one of the many repossessed by SPPL/SPML/CAPSTONE, whoever owned my loan at the time, back in 2010. I had been fighting with them since 2007 over arrears and was receiving constant repossession threats and had to make countless court appearances to fight to keep my home. However I was fighting a losing battle because the arrears were growing substantially each month due to £115.00 litigation charges, arrears charges, interest on arrears charges and even charged around £450.00 for legal fees each time they took me to court to have me evicted. I actually had a repossession notice served on me in 2009 where I put all of my property in storage and we all had to separate and live at different homes. The day after the eviction was supposed to take place a letter was issued to come to an arrangement with them (previously wouldn’t accept any offer, had to have full amount of arrears). I come to an arrangement a few weeks later and moved back into my home. Whilst on the arrangement these charges were still applied meaning that any payment made towards arrears did not reduce them, it actually increased them. It was not long before I started receiving the threats for eviction again and was back at court. I spent considerable hours going through all of my statements, highlighting charges etc. to prepare me for court this time. The judge wanted the hearing adjourned to go through everything but whilst waiting for the next hearing I was offered a council house and took it after waiting 3 years for one. I then had no fight in me to return to court and just let them proceed with the repossession. During that time, up to this day, I have suffered with mental health problems, a couple of them severe. It is about time they were exposed for what they are, to stop their unlawful practices and to compensate people for their loss and the distress caused.
I’ve had many run ins with this lot-they have tried on no more than six occasions to get my house, if anybody requires any advice on dealing with this lot in court-contact me via my email dogsection@gmail.com and will endevour to help you. NO COST-I JUST THOROUGHLY HATE THIS LOT AND KNOW HOW TO DEAL WITH THEM.
G
I am willing to help anybody that needs it-they have tried on no more than six occasions to get my house, if anybody requires any advice on dealing with this lot in court-contact me via my email dogsection@gmail.com and will endevour to help you. NO COST-I JUST THOROUGHLY HATE THIS LOT AND KNOW HOW TO DEAL WITH THEM-PLEASE CONTACT ME.
G